Double Foul During Free Throw

[Vinski]

Originally Posted by Splute

If we are talking about a double foul, then I do not believe it does. At least from reading all the cases under the "double foul". Otherwise I would agree.

I agree if we are talking about a double foul, but I mentioned a violation, such as swinging elbows or running OOB to avoid a screen or box out.

[Splute]

Originally Posted by Vinski

I agree if we are talking about a double foul, but I mentioned a violation, such as swinging elbows or running OOB to avoid a screen or box out.

Of course, I apologize... one track mind. Note to self; read more carefully. This has been a very interesting discussion from something I originally thought was very simple.

[just another ref]

Is the wording significant on 4-11-3 in that it says ....if a teammate fouls...the ball becomes dead immediately. ?

This as opposed to .....if a team control foul is committed ......the ball immediately becomes dead.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Is the wording significant on 4-11-3 in that it says ....if a teammate fouls...the ball becomes dead immediately. ?

This as opposed to .....if a team control foul is committed ......the ball immediately becomes dead.

Now you're just arguing grammantics.

[Nevadaref]

We have discussed this play before.

A1 starts a try for goal, but has not yet released the ball when A2 and B2 commit a double foul.

The correct ruling is that continuous motion does NOT apply and the game is resumed with the POI.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

We have discussed this play before.

A1 starts a try for goal, but has not yet released the ball when A2 and B2 commit a double foul.

The correct ruling is that continuous motion does NOT apply and the game is resumed with the POI.

Sigh.....

Got a definitive rules citation to back that up?

Btw, could you also point me to the previous discussion?

[Nevadaref]

Sigh.....

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Got a definitive rules citation to back that up?

The already cited 4-11-3.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Btw, could you also point me to the previous discussion?

No, the search function on this forum rarely returns what I want. I just end up wasting my time. You'll have to locate it yourself.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Sigh.....

Got a definitive rules citation to back that up?

Btw, could you also point me to the previous discussion?

Do you say that 4-11-3 is not applicable here? Do you have a rule citation, definitive or otherwise, to support that idea?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Sigh.....

Got a definitive rules citation to back that up?

Btw, could you also point me to the previous discussion?

Your approach is getting really old. How about posting a reason the statement is not valid rather implying you don't believe a post and ask them to prove it. If you have reason to believe it untrue, give something more intelligent than "Sigh... Got a definitive rules citation to back that up?". Offer something useful....something that couters the claim.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

We have discussed this play before.

A1 starts a try for goal, but has not yet released the ball when A2 and B2 commit a double foul.

The correct ruling is that continuous motion does NOT apply and the game is resumed with the POI.

Yes, we have discussed this before. The search (I used double foul continuous motion) turned up several such threads. And, almost all of the opinions (including Jurassic's) were that continuous motion did not apply. The opinions were based on the same (and inadequate, imo) references as in this thread.

No definitive case was cited, and no explanation of the apparent conflict between 4-11-2 and 4-11-3 was given, that I could find.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

no explanation of the apparent conflict between 4-11-2 and 4-11-3 was given

How is it a conflict?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

And, almost all of the opinions (including Jurassic's) were that continuous motion did not apply. The opinions were based on the same (and inadequate, imo) references as in this thread.

Gee, I guess that you've changed Jurassic's mind. I also agree that the rules references simply aren't definitive.